Appeal No. 1997-0030
Application No. 08/180,767
c) claims 6, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21-23, 26-28 , unpatentable 2
over Piper in view of Kung, and further in view of Bricks and
Schachar;
d) claims 8-10, 16 and 30-32, unpatentable over Piper in3
view of Kung, and further in view of Cahuzac;
e) claim 17, unpatentable over Piper in view of Kung, and
further in view of Bricks and Cahuzac; and
2Although the cover sheet of the final rejection
indicated that claim 28 was finally rejected, neither the
final rejection nor the answer includes claim 28 in the
statement of any of the rejections. Upon review of the
record, it reasonably appears that the examiner intended to
reject claim 28 on the same evidentiary basis as claim 26,
from which it depends. Accordingly, we have included claim 28
in this rejection. In light of our decision in this appeal,
appellant is not prejudiced by our addition of claim 28 to
this rejection.
3The rejection of claim 16 as being unpatentable over
Piper in view of Kung and further in view of Cahuzac is a new
ground of rejection of this claim made for the first time in
the examiner’s answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007